Author Q: "When was the last time you heard about a comparison between immigrants from France, Germany, or Eastern Europe and white-identified persons from the deep South, Appalachia, or the Midwest in terms of wealth, educational attainment, or rates of marriage or violent crime in our everyday discourse? Such comparisons are rarely inc…
Author Q: "When was the last time you heard about a comparison between immigrants from France, Germany, or Eastern Europe and white-identified persons from the deep South, Appalachia, or the Midwest in terms of wealth, educational attainment, or rates of marriage or violent crime in our everyday discourse? Such comparisons are rarely included in reports on group disparities, even though there’s no obvious reason why they are less relevant than those commonly made between different populations of “black” Americans".
A: Thomas Sowell's
'Ethnic America' - I read it in a college economics class about 40 years ago. It was very memorable....points remembered?!...(1) ethnic groups that learned English quickly did economically better & assimilated into the culture faster (2) Ethnic groups that clustered together is ghettos like the Italians, Chinese, etc took longer to attain economic success...it's still worth a read today...
Ethnic comparison's today don't focus on European populations because they don't comprise most of today's migration...
Thanks for your response. In a sense, you prove my point, CC: the last you heard mention of such a comparison is 40 years ago! My main point, however, is the way that statistical comparisons between groups that are racialized as "black" are used to imply deficiency among native-born, multi-generation Americans of African descent in relation to recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. Such comparisons are not done in a vacuum; rather, they serve to counter the overwrought claims by many progressive anti-racists who ride their horses on social media shouting: "White Supremacy is Coming, White Supremacy is Coming!"
But if we want a more accurate overall picture of how racialized groups are faring in society, then also take a look at those who are racialized as "white," of various ancestries, regions, and national origins. Otherwise, it seems to me, native-born Black Americans are just being used in an elite narrative warfare between liberal progressives and social and economic conservatives. As a radical moderate proud of my ethno-cultural heritage AND my identity as an American citizen, I chafe at such an approach to political argumentation.
First, Sowell’s ‘Ethnic America’ is just the first time I had read an ethnic studies comparisons, but over the 40 years since they’ve been myriad comparative studies on America’s ethnic makeup. We are after all an nation of immigrants.
Secondly, clearly progressives today are using any argument to exclaim, ‘White Supremacy is coming’ etc. because that is the underlying Modus Operandi of the Democrat Party, ie to slice & dice the electorate and then pander to these diverse groups. That is the very essence of the Party model- that’s where it gets it power. Listen to party rhetoric; ‘White America is afraid of a multi-culturalism, afraid if immigration etc”. When in fact, most people just want law & order. They don’t want the violence & disarray that comes with Democrat Party policies.
And finally, the most blatant racism I have observed over my long life has been amongst the black community itself. In college, I observed a group of black women looking through an Ebony magazine having a very involved and I would say prejudicial discussion about ‘skin tone’ and ‘blackness’ - some tones were better than others?! Up to that point, I had never thought of ‘tonality’. Later on in New York City, my black Carribbean babysitters often would proudly tell me how much more they had it together, ie cleaner neighborhoods, consciousness etc than Native American blacks. I did hire a Trinidadian of East Indian origin also who never mentioned race. I have never heard whites make similar comparisons. However, years ago different white ethnic groups used humor and made jokes about each other, ie Italian jokes, Polish jokes, etc - humor seemed to be a way that people coped with culture clashes and diffferences.
CC: I think your argument about the Democratic Party has some elements of the truth, but is still partial. "Some" elements of the party of the left slices and dices the electorate to pander. But your one-sided analysis implies that the party of the right, the Republicans, don't do the very same. They obviously do. That's the nature of partisan party politics, and neither side is pure in that regard.
As a radical moderate, I stay at arms-length from party politics, while keeping a close eye on the extremes of both sides. Why? the far left (social justice warriors, etc.) and the far-right (alt-right white nationalists, etc.) have much in common in terms of their illiberalism and authoritarian attitudes. Therefore someone such as myself, being near the center of the political spectrum, would be looked at with suspicion by both groups--because I see them for what they BOTH are.
And as regards your subjective experience and observations of racism "over your long life," I won't argue with how you frame it, as it's your experience. But from my experience, not only as a Black American male close to 60 years old, but as someone who has deeply studied history and culture, I'll say that your framing seems skewed toward your outer observations of intra-group dynamics.
In other words, among Black Americans as an ethnic group, there has been for a long time discussions of internalized bias based on skin color. In New Orleans in the 19th century, for instance, there was the infamous "brown paper bag" tests. If you were darker than the brown paper bag, you couldn't be a part of certain social groups. Intra-group discrimination based on internalized norms of whiteness--or proximity to the same--isn't a surprise once we understand the connection between social status and economic power and privilege.
And inter-group tension and social status talk among native Black Americans and West Indians has a long history. I see that for what it is, and will not buy into such inter-group narrative warfare, though I will, as in this piece, defend my ethnic kin from being targeted and used by others to make their political points to our detriment.
I'm glad that you mentioned the inter-ethnic dynamics among folks originally from Europe. It's the same kind of thing that you observed, but were surprised at, as you say you weren't aware of such dynamics among folks racialized as black.
But if it's actually true that the most blatant racism that you've observed has been among the black community, then I must say that I wonder where you're looking and whether your political position is coloring, so to speak, your perceptions. If you need some verification of existing racist attitudes among some Americans racialized as white, I urge you to check out "Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Are," by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz. He found that there are an alarming number of annual searches under the expression "nigger jokes."
So the way that some people--about 7 million searches annually--deal with culture clashes and differences is by actively searching for "nigger jokes." That's not implicit bias; that's explicit racism.
Re: Political party carve outs…the Republican Party clearly has political factions within itself. But from a policy viewpoint, it views the electorate as one and tried to avoid racial ‘favorites’ & factions: ‘hyphenation’ is not its thing, as we are all ‘Americans’, the characteristics that unites us all.
The Republican Party views the electorate as one?? When? During primaries? During national elections when they appeal to their base and other supporters.
YOU may view the electorate as one--which is a beautiful, admirable stance--but the Republican Party? Unfortunately, certain political factions within the Republican Party plays on resentment and fear against certain "others" who they don't see as part of their voter base. Party politics, on both sides, play off or fear, anxiety, and resentments for political gain. Which is one reason party politics disgust me, and has me focus more on cultural intelligence and cultural growth in the United States. This is part of my work as a Senior Fellow of the Institute for Cultural Evolution.
That's not what I claimed nor what I am arguing. It's not just about actual legislation. I'm talking about the messaging in political campaigns that appeal to fear and resentment to strengthen voter turnout mainly in primaries, and in state and national elections.
Since our cognitive hardware is wired with a negativity bias, I understand why such appeals are effective. But it does nothing to decrease the high level of political polarization, especially, again, at the extremes of political discourse.
For more on this theme, see Jonathan Haidt's most recent essay in The Atlantic, "Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid."
Author Q: "When was the last time you heard about a comparison between immigrants from France, Germany, or Eastern Europe and white-identified persons from the deep South, Appalachia, or the Midwest in terms of wealth, educational attainment, or rates of marriage or violent crime in our everyday discourse? Such comparisons are rarely included in reports on group disparities, even though there’s no obvious reason why they are less relevant than those commonly made between different populations of “black” Americans".
A: Thomas Sowell's
'Ethnic America' - I read it in a college economics class about 40 years ago. It was very memorable....points remembered?!...(1) ethnic groups that learned English quickly did economically better & assimilated into the culture faster (2) Ethnic groups that clustered together is ghettos like the Italians, Chinese, etc took longer to attain economic success...it's still worth a read today...
Ethnic comparison's today don't focus on European populations because they don't comprise most of today's migration...
Thanks for your response. In a sense, you prove my point, CC: the last you heard mention of such a comparison is 40 years ago! My main point, however, is the way that statistical comparisons between groups that are racialized as "black" are used to imply deficiency among native-born, multi-generation Americans of African descent in relation to recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. Such comparisons are not done in a vacuum; rather, they serve to counter the overwrought claims by many progressive anti-racists who ride their horses on social media shouting: "White Supremacy is Coming, White Supremacy is Coming!"
But if we want a more accurate overall picture of how racialized groups are faring in society, then also take a look at those who are racialized as "white," of various ancestries, regions, and national origins. Otherwise, it seems to me, native-born Black Americans are just being used in an elite narrative warfare between liberal progressives and social and economic conservatives. As a radical moderate proud of my ethno-cultural heritage AND my identity as an American citizen, I chafe at such an approach to political argumentation.
First, Sowell’s ‘Ethnic America’ is just the first time I had read an ethnic studies comparisons, but over the 40 years since they’ve been myriad comparative studies on America’s ethnic makeup. We are after all an nation of immigrants.
Secondly, clearly progressives today are using any argument to exclaim, ‘White Supremacy is coming’ etc. because that is the underlying Modus Operandi of the Democrat Party, ie to slice & dice the electorate and then pander to these diverse groups. That is the very essence of the Party model- that’s where it gets it power. Listen to party rhetoric; ‘White America is afraid of a multi-culturalism, afraid if immigration etc”. When in fact, most people just want law & order. They don’t want the violence & disarray that comes with Democrat Party policies.
And finally, the most blatant racism I have observed over my long life has been amongst the black community itself. In college, I observed a group of black women looking through an Ebony magazine having a very involved and I would say prejudicial discussion about ‘skin tone’ and ‘blackness’ - some tones were better than others?! Up to that point, I had never thought of ‘tonality’. Later on in New York City, my black Carribbean babysitters often would proudly tell me how much more they had it together, ie cleaner neighborhoods, consciousness etc than Native American blacks. I did hire a Trinidadian of East Indian origin also who never mentioned race. I have never heard whites make similar comparisons. However, years ago different white ethnic groups used humor and made jokes about each other, ie Italian jokes, Polish jokes, etc - humor seemed to be a way that people coped with culture clashes and diffferences.
CC: I think your argument about the Democratic Party has some elements of the truth, but is still partial. "Some" elements of the party of the left slices and dices the electorate to pander. But your one-sided analysis implies that the party of the right, the Republicans, don't do the very same. They obviously do. That's the nature of partisan party politics, and neither side is pure in that regard.
As a radical moderate, I stay at arms-length from party politics, while keeping a close eye on the extremes of both sides. Why? the far left (social justice warriors, etc.) and the far-right (alt-right white nationalists, etc.) have much in common in terms of their illiberalism and authoritarian attitudes. Therefore someone such as myself, being near the center of the political spectrum, would be looked at with suspicion by both groups--because I see them for what they BOTH are.
I discuss this in some detail in the latest essay featured on my blog: "Political Extremists vs. The Middle Path: Why I Remain a Radical Moderate": https://www.tuneintoleadership.com/blog/political-extremes-vs-the-middle-path-why-i-remain-a-radical-moderate
And as regards your subjective experience and observations of racism "over your long life," I won't argue with how you frame it, as it's your experience. But from my experience, not only as a Black American male close to 60 years old, but as someone who has deeply studied history and culture, I'll say that your framing seems skewed toward your outer observations of intra-group dynamics.
In other words, among Black Americans as an ethnic group, there has been for a long time discussions of internalized bias based on skin color. In New Orleans in the 19th century, for instance, there was the infamous "brown paper bag" tests. If you were darker than the brown paper bag, you couldn't be a part of certain social groups. Intra-group discrimination based on internalized norms of whiteness--or proximity to the same--isn't a surprise once we understand the connection between social status and economic power and privilege.
And inter-group tension and social status talk among native Black Americans and West Indians has a long history. I see that for what it is, and will not buy into such inter-group narrative warfare, though I will, as in this piece, defend my ethnic kin from being targeted and used by others to make their political points to our detriment.
I'm glad that you mentioned the inter-ethnic dynamics among folks originally from Europe. It's the same kind of thing that you observed, but were surprised at, as you say you weren't aware of such dynamics among folks racialized as black.
But if it's actually true that the most blatant racism that you've observed has been among the black community, then I must say that I wonder where you're looking and whether your political position is coloring, so to speak, your perceptions. If you need some verification of existing racist attitudes among some Americans racialized as white, I urge you to check out "Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Are," by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz. He found that there are an alarming number of annual searches under the expression "nigger jokes."
So the way that some people--about 7 million searches annually--deal with culture clashes and differences is by actively searching for "nigger jokes." That's not implicit bias; that's explicit racism.
Re: Political party carve outs…the Republican Party clearly has political factions within itself. But from a policy viewpoint, it views the electorate as one and tried to avoid racial ‘favorites’ & factions: ‘hyphenation’ is not its thing, as we are all ‘Americans’, the characteristics that unites us all.
The Republican Party views the electorate as one?? When? During primaries? During national elections when they appeal to their base and other supporters.
YOU may view the electorate as one--which is a beautiful, admirable stance--but the Republican Party? Unfortunately, certain political factions within the Republican Party plays on resentment and fear against certain "others" who they don't see as part of their voter base. Party politics, on both sides, play off or fear, anxiety, and resentments for political gain. Which is one reason party politics disgust me, and has me focus more on cultural intelligence and cultural growth in the United States. This is part of my work as a Senior Fellow of the Institute for Cultural Evolution.
Name one piece of legislation or policy where the Republican party has created a carve out for a particular ethnic group.
That's not what I claimed nor what I am arguing. It's not just about actual legislation. I'm talking about the messaging in political campaigns that appeal to fear and resentment to strengthen voter turnout mainly in primaries, and in state and national elections.
Since our cognitive hardware is wired with a negativity bias, I understand why such appeals are effective. But it does nothing to decrease the high level of political polarization, especially, again, at the extremes of political discourse.
For more on this theme, see Jonathan Haidt's most recent essay in The Atlantic, "Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid."